Application of Six Sigma and reduce rejection rate at

TVS Sundram Fasteners Limited

A thesis entitled to be submitted in fulfillment of the partial requirements
For the degree of
Master of Technology
In
Industrial System Engineering
By:
MYPATI OMKAR
(11MF3IM11)

Under the guidance of

Prof. PL Narashimhan

Department of Industrial System Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled Application of Six Sigma and reduce rejection rate at
TVS Sundram Fasteners Limited submitted by MYPATI OMKAR, Roll No.11MF3IM11, to
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, for the award of the Master of Technology, is a
record of bonafide research work carried out by him under my supervision and guidance. The
thesis, in my opinion, is worthy of consideration for the award of the degree of Master of
Technology in Engineering in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Institute.

Prof. PL Narashimhan
Department of Industrial System Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, 721302

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am deeply grateful to my supervisor, Prof. PL Narashimhan Industrial System Engineering,
whose insights and encouragements have contributed so much to this work. Not only he
provided me the direction for my work, he also had faith in me and gave me enough freedom
to pursue my own ideas. The valuable help and assistance provided during course of the
project.
I am grateful to the Department of, Industrial System Engineering IIT Kharagpur, for the
required facilities and TVS Sundram Fasteners Limited provided to carry out the experimental
work for the project. Last but not least, I wish to put record on my deep appreciation to all those
well wishers who helped me actively or passively for the project work.

Date: 14/10/2015
IIT Kharagpur
MYPATI OMKAR
11MF3IM11
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
IIT Kharagpur

CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION
This is to certify that we have examined the thesis entitled Application of Six Sigma and
reduce rejection rate at TVS Sundram Fasteners Limited submitted by MYPATI OMKAR,
Roll no.11MF3IM11, an Undergraduate student of the department of Mechanical Engineering.
We hereby accord our approval of it as a, study carried out and presented in a manner required
for its acceptance in partial fulfillment for the Undergraduate Degree for which it has been
submitted. This approval does not necessarily endorse or accept every statement made, opinion
expressed or conclusion drawn as recorded in this thesis

Examiners:

Supervisor:

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research is to review and explore the basic concepts of the six sigma
(DMAIC), limitation and approach for implementation of using six sigma methodologies in
manufacturing industry. TVS Sundram Fasteners Limited is one of the manufacturing industry
in India which targeted to achieve the reduction in defect rate. Six sigma is a process that
reduces the rejections or waste by focusing on the quality issues that are essential to the
customer.
Improvising the process capability of the machine by manual calculation and applying the
FMEA for the most rejected operation. Process flow charts and pareto charts were created to
easily detect the defects; data was collected and analyzed. Conclusions and recommendations
were drawn from the analyze data.

Contents
1)

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7
2) Literature Survey...................................................................................................... 8
3) Objective................................................................................................................. 9
4) Theory and Methodology .................................................................................... 10

5) Problem Statement................................................................................................... 12
6) Current Senario....................................................................................................... 13
7) Scope.................................................................................................................... 14
8) Analysis................................................................................................................. 14
9) QC story .............................................................................................................. 19

10) Conclusion............................................................................................................ 31
11) Future Scope......................................................................................................... 31
12) Referances............................................................................................................ 32

1) INTRODUCTION
The Six Sigma Methodology is a customer focused continuous improvement strategy
that minimizes defects and variation towards an achievement of 3.4 defects per million
opportunities in product design, production, and administrative process.
Six Sigma is a continuous improvement of an industry to find out the causes of errors, defects
and delays in an industry. The main objectives of the project were grouped as; process
improvement, Quality Control story for the machine producing more defects and measurement
equipment. The process improvements like lean manufacturing and six sigma. Regarding the
measurement equipment, the objectives are to determine in the current measurement system to
the type of defect and to assess the repeatability and reproducibility.
The analysis of problems and process improvement, the objectives were: (1) identify the factors
or processes that affect the quality (2) identify the levels of the parameters in which the effect of
the sources of variation will be minimal; (3) develop proposals for improvement and (4) to
implement and monitor the proposed improvements.
Identifying the major defect rate in the manufacturing process and applying the FMEA analysis
to achieve the better defect rate. process monitoring chart (PMC) which shows about the
percentage of the defect rate per shift. Pareto chart shows the rejections that are faced during the
Six Sigma is a project management tool based on measurable goals and objective, and divides
the problem or improvement opportunity into distinct phase of definition, measurement,
analysis, improvement and control (DMAIC), employing statistical tools at each one of these
phase to validate each and every decision taken at each phase of the projects like
design/redesign and improvement of process.

3) OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this study are:
a) To be familiar with manufacturing process and its problems in manufacturing industry.
b) To understand the calculation of the process capability and improving the process
capability if required.
c) To understand and apply six sigma methodology in improving quality of product and
solving problems of manufacturing industry.
d) To implement DMAIC methodology as six sigma method to improve yield on the
grinding process by reducing the defect rate from 1.2%.

PROBLEM STATEMENT:
TVS Sundram Fasteners Limited is a manufacturing company which manufactures
sprockets to ford with rejection rate of 0% but company facing problem of 1.2%
rejection rate.
We focus on the high rejection percentage in the pareto chart.
Process

Rejected .No

Percentage %

C damage face

26

14

49 dia scratch mark

23

11.3

Grinding dia under

20

73.015 dimn under

15

6.5

The major defects are coming from grinding process; we focused on that process and make the
FMEA

4) THEORY AND METHODOLOGY

9

Collected the rejection data during manufacturing the process and make an pareto chart
to easily identify the problem.

Studying capability of current measuring system and quantified it using kappa analysis.

Analyzed the current process and operating procedures to identify root cause for scrap
generation using various six sigma tools.

Benefits through the study are validated and documents are modified with necessary
changes for controlling the identified problem.

10

11

5) Problem statement
a) TVS Sundram Fasteners Limited is a manufacturing company which manufactures
sprockets to ford with rejection rate of 0% but company facing problem of 1.2%
rejection rate.
Reason for Rejection

Rejected .No

Percentage %

C damage face

26

14

49 dia scratch mark

23

11.3

Grinding dia under

20

73.015 dimn under

15

6.5

The above listed table shows the data of reason for rejection and no of rejections in one month
production.

They are getting these types of scratches and dent marks after grinding operation. This as major
issue they are facing.

b) Reducing the production time and to achieve the takt time in the sprocket production

line. The takt time for their product is 27 sec but they are not achieving their target. By
implementing the steps of SMED( Single minute Exchange of Die)

6) Current Scenario
12

They are using Micromatic grinding machine to grind they products. In grinding machine 4
stages of machining takes place.
a)
b)
c)
d)

Air time
Coarse feed
Fine feed
Spark out time

With these feeds they are used to machine their desire diameter of their product.
Parameters they are using:
Grinding wheel type: A60, 400 (A-grit type Aluminum oxide, 60- grit size 0.254cm)
Coolant pressure: 35kg/cm2
Tail stock clamping force: 10-15 kg/cm2
Grinding speed: 1500 rpm
Spindle speed: 135 rpm
Dressing time: 45 jobs
Feed 4 stages:
a)
b)
c)
d)

Air time feed : 0.8mm

Coarse feed: 0.5mm
Fine feed: 0.18mm
Spark out feed: 0.04mm

They have to maintain an surface roughness value Ra = 0.3-0.6

The takt time for their component is 27 sec but they are achieving to 35 sec they can reduce to
27sec by purchasing an extra machine, but they are not effort for that due to less difference.

7) Scope for Improvement

13

Collecting the past two month rejection data of this grinding process and making a pareto
analysis. Among those 80% contributing rejection process are consider and work on that to
minimize those rejections.
Developing a fish bone diagram for the grinding process and observing the variations in
changing the coolant pressure and tail stock clamping pressure and grinding wheel speed and
spindle speed and varying the feed among those 4 stages for better quality improvement.
We had to reduce the time less than takt time using industrial knowledge. For reducing the
production time we have to analyze the VSM of the product and observe the high cycle time
process.

8) Analysis
Doing analysis part we first go through the process capability of the machine weather it is
capable of machining a part in a given tolerance limit.
Considering our case the tolerance limit is

it is very difficult to achieve by machining

process so they preferred the grinding process instead of turning process.

Process capability
1. Process capability is a lifelong performance level of the process. Or process capability is also
define as the range over the variation of the process which occurs as determined by the object of
common causes.
2. Process capability is also the ability of the combination of people, machine, methods,
material, and measurements to produce a product that will consistently meet the design
requirements or customer expectation.
Calculation of process capability was
__

x=

1
xi
n i 1
n

Stotal

14

n
__
1
=
( xi x ) 2
n 1 i 1

Calculating the process capability of the

Bearing Dia (49.978-49.988)
49.986

49.986

49.984

49.984

49.985

49.984

49.985

49.985

49.984

49.986

49.986

49.986

49.987

49.987

49.986

49.985

49.984

49.986

49.984

49.985

49.985

49.986

49.985

49.988

49.987

49.987

49.985

49.986

49.985

49.985

15

The Process capability analysis is done by using minitab software. Generally Cpk value should
be 1.33 but in this machine performing the Cpk value is 0.78. We can say that machine is not
capable of machining the product with given specific limit.
So to improve the process capability of the machine the following steps to be maintain
Machine levelling
Collect chuck run out
Machine Repeatability
Turret Indexing
Ball screw backlash to be checked
All these checking daily before starting the machine we can improve the process capability.
After doing the technique the process capability value is increase and achieve the desirable
value which is >1.33.
Bearing Dia (49.978-49.988)
49.983

49.983

49.980

49.981

49.982

49.984

49.984

49.983

49.981

49.984
16

49.984

49.983

49.983

49.982

49.981

49.983

49.982

49.982

49.981

49.983

49.982

49.981

49.983

49.982

49.982

49.983

49.981

49.982

49.984

49.983

From these result we can conclude that daily implementation of the maintenance to the machine
which we can achieve desirable tolerances.

In this part we can made an pareto chart for the reason for rejections and considering the top
most influencing rejections and making an cause an effect diagrams. Then we can easily
notify the causes for rejection from 4M (MAN, MACHINE, MATERIAL, METHODS).
The below given data is number of rejections and reasons for rejections in grinding process
in sprocket production line.
The given rejection data is:
17

Sl
no

REASION FOR REJECTION

QTY

18

C Face Damage

26

49 Diameter scratch mark/Dent

23

Grinding diameter undersize

20

73.015 dimn oversize

15

Tooth dent /6.3 Face dent

14

8.1 Diameter go not answer

13

Shaping tooth runout

13

"C" Face Center drill hole damage

13

B Face Damage

10

10

Grinding chamfer dent

10

11

Laser mark not ok

12

GrindingTaper/Ovality

13

4.20 Thickness undersize

14

80.5 Diameter undersize

15

Hobbing tooth position Not ok

16

Shapping tooth excess deburring

17

73.015 dimn undersize

18

4.20 Thickness oversize

19

Grinding diameter undersize due to rework

20

A Face Damage

21

Damage (Insert Brocken)CNC-1

22

A Drill chamfering oversize /uneven

23

Teeth radius oversize

24

53.05 Distence undersize

25

73.015 Diameter runout

From the above rejection data we have make apareto chart to clear understand the study
on rejection parts
Pareto analysis: concentrate on problems that have major impact on rejection parts by
showing bar graphs along with curve shows relative frequency.

Pareto chart for above data is

19

Considering the top 4 rejections and made an pareto analysis for those rejections

9) QC STORY:
1) PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: set themes and target for improvements
2) Observe carefully the phenomenon related to the theme for 1 week
3) At first pick up the probable causes then identify the root causes by analyzing the data
root causes is identify through facts and list out root causes
4) Derive several possible countermeasure to the root causes

Evaluate the counter measures from the view point of effectiveness, cost,
possibility of execution, etc and choose the best counter measure.

Conduct brief verification of the counter measure choose if the result is ok then
the counter measures become action

20

5) Implementing the action plan & evaluate the result.

6) Review the problem solving procedure applied.
7) Horizontal deployment of the counter measures.
8) Identify the remaining problems and make a plan for the future.
Made a root cause analysis or ISHIKAWA diagram for grinding process:

Wheel Speed: If wheel speed is increased friction between the work piece and wheel is more so
there is a difference in surface roughness. More the wheel speed more the Ra value.
Spark out Time: Before the wheel is take out from the grinding process its keep still air near to
the work piece for a while which grinds the small particles due to variation in the grit size on the
wheel does not able to grinds those small particles.
If spark out time is more bearing diameter under size problem will occurs. If its less surface
roughness will be more.
Feed: Generally grinding operation will done in 4 stages based on that for each stage they will
give feed so that it wont damage to both w/p and grinding wheel
21

If more feed surface roughness is more and dressing time will be decrease.

Work speed: If more the work speed it causes improper grinding of the work piece. We cant
achieve our tolerance limit of the bearing diameter.
Wheel grade: The composition in the wheel grade matters for the hardness of the work piece
and work speed of operation. Generally in any manufacturing company they will use A-60 type
aluminum oxide because many components to be grind are under 78HRC.
Dressing: This process is done because of wearing of the grit sharpness after continuous
grinding operation. Dressing makes the grit sharp and produce smooth surface. Improper
dressing causes the variation in surface roughness and probably cause of scratches.
Tail Stock pressure: The work piece is loaded between the chucks from front side and back
side. Front side is tail stock end and back side is spindle side. Spindle consists of 3 jaw chuck to
clamp the work piece and other end tail stock applied some pressure to make the work piece
linear.
More the pressure causes the ovality in the work piece. Less pressure causes irregular grinding
Alignment of tail stock and head stock: The alignment of tail stock determines what shape
should be done from grinding operation. To grind the slant work pieces the head and tail stocks
should not be straight. If misalignment in head and tail stock leads to dimensional errors in the
work piece and possible of scratches and dents on the work piece.
Hardness Variation: Hardness is the major issues in many manufacturing companies. During
SQF of the raw material causes hardness variation in the work piece. More the hardness we
cant achieve the required diameter of grinding operation. Lower the hardness causes the
variation in the surface roughness.

We will analyze the 4 major rejections from the pareto analysis with the existed fish bone
diagram. What factors causing for rejections will be measured and trying to resolve then for
decreasing the rejection rate.

1) C-face damage:

22

FIG:

C-Face Damage

FIG: Normal C-Face

Making a fish bone diagram for this defect to clear understanding and easily rectify the problem

Probable Cause 1: Tail stock clamping

If the tail stock clamping is improper then there is a chance of burr inside the tail stock clamp
then for next job fit in that we can observe the c-face damage
Expt.
No

Condition

Produced Qty.

Rejected Qty.

Burr at tail stock side

15

No burr at tail stock side

15

Probable Cause 2: Setting error

23

Tail stock should be exactly fit to the work piece. Due to rotation of job if any misalignment
causes hit to the tail stock which leads to rejected part. It root cause impact is more in rejection
rate.
Probable cause 3: Hardness Low /High
Conclusion: Hardness values are within the specification ie.78HRC, Hardness low/High is not
a root cause.

2) 49 Diameter Scratch mark/ Dent:

Probable Cause 1: Alignment of Tail stock and head stock

24

Making slight change in alignment of tail stock and head stock then result are observed as
Expt.
No

Condition

Produced Qty.

Rejected Qty.

Without misalignment

30

With misalignment

30

This is a probable cause for scratch and dents

Probable Cause 2: Dressing
Dressing is mainly done to sharpen the grits. Due to improper grits sizes on the wheel makes
rough and smooth contact which leads to scratches and dents.
Observation are made recorded
Expt.
No

Condition

Produced Qty.

Rejected Qty.

With Dressing

30

Without Dressing

30

Which is also one of the probable root cause for this rejection.
Probable Cause 3: Repeatability
Repeatability is measure of variation of the machine when attempting to repeat the identical
motion. In many machine due to improper maintenance of the machine cause sudden setup error
leads to the dents on the work pieces.
Probable Cause 4: Inspection error
It is also cause due to less attention at the inspection place. One should be carefully inspect is
there any dent or scratch on the work piece from the previous process. For this inspection we
implement a kappa analysis for all workers at the inspection place.
Probable cause 5: Hardness Low /High
Conclusion: Hardness values are within the specification ie.78HRC, Hardness low/High is not
a root cause.

3) Grinding diameter under size:

25

Probable Cause 1: Wrong Loading

Expt.
No

Condition

Produced Qty.

Rejected Qty.

Parts clamped with wrong loading

30

Parts are clamped with proper

butting

30

Wrong Loading

Correct Loading

Conclusion: Wrong loading is identified is not a root cause.

Probable Cause 2: Setting Error

26

Expt. No

Condition

Produced
Qty.

Rejected Qty.

Set Value49.978/49.988

50

Part got rejected at 27th part for part print 49.974

Set Value49.975 /49.985

50

Part got rejected at 26th part for stage

specification 49.974

Conclusion: If we set value in maximum value the part will not reach specification w.r.t to part
print Setting Error is a root cause.
Probable Cause 3: Morposs gauge
Morposs Gauge is used to grind the product for the specific value according to the given offset
value. This gauge gives the continuous reading of diameter during grinding operation. The offset
value should be reset after every grinding operation. If its not reset then show Diameter
undersize.
Expt. No

Condition

Produced
Qty.

Rejected Qty.

Reset morposs gauge

30

Parts got rejected 0 number

Without reset morposs

gauge

30

Parts got rejected 4 number

We can say that Morposs gauge is root cause

Probable Cause 4: Dressing of grinding wheel
Depend on the hardness of the material and type of grinding wheel dressing should be
performed after grinding of certain number of components. The sharpness of the grit is decrease
when continuous grinding operation to regain the sharpness grinding wheel is dressed. Due to
dressing of grinding wheel it effect only Ra (Surface roughness) value. So it is not a root cause.
Probable cause 5: Hardness Low /High
Conclusion: Hardness values are within the specification ie.78HRC, Hardness low/High is not
a root cause.

4) 73.015 dim over size:

27

Probable Cause 1: Wrong Loading

Expt.
No

Condition

Produced Qty.

Rejected Qty.

Parts clamped with wrong loading

30

Parts are clamped with proper

butting

30

Wrong Loading

Correct Loading

Conclusion: Wrong loading is identified is not a root cause.

Probable Cause 2: Z and X axis repeatability low

28

Sl.No

Test item
Repeated
accurcy

Tolerances

Test Result

X axis direction

0.003

0.005

0.005

Z axis direction

0.003

0.01

0.005

Conclusion: Test result is within the specification so Repeatability is not a root cause
Probable Cause 3: Butting face out high
Sl.No

Test item

Tolerances

Test result

Spindle flange face out

0.015

0.02

0.004

Spindle centre runout

0.015

0.02

0.004

Conclusion: Test result is within the specification so face out is not a root cause.
Probable Cause 4: Setting Error
Expt. No

Condition

Produced
Qty.

Rejected Qty.

Set Value73.002/73.015

50

Part got rejected at 22nd part for part print 73.016

Set Value73.004 /73.013

50

Part got rejected at 25th part for stage

specification 73.014

Conclusion: If we set value in maximum value the part will go out of specification w.r.t to part
print Setting Error is a root cause.
Probable cause 5: Hardness Low /High
Conclusion: Hardness values are within the specification ie.78HRC, Hardness low/High is not
a root cause.

Probable cause 6: Wrong tool path

29

Expt. No

Condition

Produced Qty. Rejected Qty. Rejection %

Two different tool path

20

Single tool path

Conclusion: Wrong tool path is a root cause.

Root Cause 1: Wrong Loading

Root Cause 2: Wrong tool path

From these above discussion we can easily identify the problem and rectify them and implement
the proposed methods in the production line. We can achieve less rejection rate compared to
previous scenario.

30

Proper maintenance of the PMC (Process Monitoring Chart) chart knows the variation in the
dimension of the manufactured product after starting of new shift. This is done to know the
variation of the machine from the previous shift to current shift performance and also knows the
PROCESS FLOW CHART:

31

 CONCLUSIONS:
Calculated the value of Cpk using minitab software before and after implementing the
maintenance steps.
Identified the measures to increase process capability
Identified the root causes of the grinding operations by using ISHIKAWA Diagram with
proper reasons.
Built a fishbone diagram for 4 major defects and QC story for each defect.

FURTURE SCOPE:

Estimated the worker behavior using kappa analysis

Reduce processing time using VSM & SMED

32

 References

Pande, P., Neuman, R., and Cavanagg, R. (2000), The Six Sigma way: how GE,
Motorola, and other top companies are honing their performance McGraw-Hill, New
York

Banuelas, R. and Antony, J. (2002), Critical success factors for the successful
implementation of six sigma projects in organisations, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No.
2, pp. 92-9.

Hendersen, K. and Evans, J. (2000), Successful implementation of Six Sigma:

benchmarking General Electric Company, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 260-281.

Paul, L. (1999), ``Practice makes perfect'', CIO Enterprise, Vol. 12 No. 7, Section 2,
January 15.

M. Marton and I. Paulov, Faculty of Materials Science and Technology in Trnava of

Process Improvement, Mater. Sci. Technol., no. 29, pp. 7176, 2010.

A. Matathil, K. N. Ganapathi, K. Ramachandran, and M. S. E. Student, Reduction of

Scrap in an Electronic Assembly Line Using DMAIC Approach, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 53
59, 2012.

S. Steiner, B. Abraham, and J. Mackay, Understanding Process Capability Indices,

Stat. Outsourcing Serv., 2014.

Utem, A_Case_Study_Of_Using_Six
Sigma_(DMAIC)_Methodology_In_Manufacturing_Industry.pdf. .

P. Stephen, Application of DMAIC to integrate Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma, p.

87, 2004.

E. V. Gijo, Improving Process Capability of Manufacturing Process by Application of

Statistical Techniques, Qual. Eng., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 309315, 2005.

A. Valles, J. Sanchez, S. Noriega, and B. G. Nuez, Implementation of Six Sigma in a

Manufacturing Process: A Case Study, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 171181, 2009.

S. S. Chowhan, Concept of Six Sigma and its Application in Banking, no. July, pp.
433436, 2013.

33

34